Curved space-time and MM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
123....,

Time doesn't exist in my opinion. It is not a tangiable enity. It is not a 4th dimension. spatial dimensions (3) and only (3) exist as a consequence of energy flowing in from the Chiral Condensate.

Flow of that energy propells a "Dynamic Present" in "Static Time". Time is our minds way of describing the fact that we receive information about energy changes around us sequentially. Time describes chronology of events caused by energy transfer but doesn't exist in-of-itself.

I'm well aware that those that don't grasp the concept can rightfully claim and argue that events cannot progress or have a chronology without time but that frankly is a lame arguement which doesn't produce answers but creates conflicts and becomes merely an arguement over symantics.

If you disagree please describe for us, in detail, the physical construction of time and how it functions. What are its units?.



Mac


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I was really responding to mechanic's question of "Does space curve" (the curving being caused by gravity),
which I answered no, using MM's reasoning that an object cannot initiate it's own movement.

As for time, I think it's just a description of thermodynamics laws- that natures' events happen in a certain direction. So, as long as thermodynamics holds true, time exist.

Actually, I meant as long as events happen, time exist. This really seems like semantics to me. Whether you call it the "chronological events of energy transfers" or time, it means the same thing. Else,
the universe would be completely static- no motion at all. So, it's not just our mind perceiving it, it's real.

And since events happen according to thermodynamics, time flows in the forward direction.

From AgoraBasta (whatever that means, maybe a "stop of Agora" meaning a stop to effectivelly communicating arguments in a public forum)

And we always can do that transformation <- that's a fact of hard reality; deal with that, or continue dreaming.

---

That's your reality, which I may or may not willing to dream of. You are using a lot of buzzwords without saying anything at all Sir. I made a specific argument that GR cannot be disproved using Euclidean concepts. If you cannot understand such a simple argument, save the fancy stuff for some other party...

Time to fix some cars.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I made a specific argument that GR cannot be disproved using Euclidean concepts.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Who talks of disproval here?! I told you a completely different thing - GR survives an introduction of a flat universal background metric with absolute time, and results of such a hybrid describe the observed reality at least just as nicely. Thus all your fancy metrics are no more real than the Euclidean space which concept we naturally bear in our minds.

One more thing - when you write those ds^2 things, do not forget that metric in GR is not constant, so you must consider at least one of dimensions as independent, better make that the time dimension. Then, for example, it's pretty obvious that ds^2=0 in every point does not mean S^2=0 over a macroscopic trajectory of a photon. And what's the use of metric defined in a sole point???

From 123...0

I was really responding to mechanic's question of "Does space curve" (the curving being caused by gravity),
which I answered no, using MM's reasoning that an object cannot initiate it's own movement.

---

Actually, the notion of a body not being able to initiate a motion is more of a problem for the MM that for GR. Those understanding Physics will understand this. The rest will keep making just arguments of the 123...0 kind.

It is often the case of people making arguments and ending up with conclusions invalidating their very own points. 123...0 just did that in a glorified way. LoL

If I expect him to understand this, would I be asking a lot from him?

In most cases a lot.

Time to fix some cars.

From AgoraBasta

GR survives an introduction of a flat universal background metric with absolute time, and results of such a hybrid describe the observed reality at least just as nicely.

---

Well, I must admit you know both the math and the physical meaning of GR very well. Let's not get into the math details and the singularities here. I'll ask you a just a single question: what's your choice between pushing graviton and GR? take those two alone please. I have considered other choices myself.

I value the opinion of those having a good understaning of GR, like you do.

Mechanic